Is Iqbal the New Twombly?
in flatbread, Iqbal, legal trends, twombly
Remember when Twombly came out in late 2006 and it showed up in just about every motion to dismiss?
Twombly, Twombly, Twombly.
Everywhere you went, people were talking about "Twombly."
You had to pretend to know something about it at judicial functions, there were teleconferences on it, and associates billed incessantly to copy and paste the part of the brief that dealt with it over and over and over again.
It was the "economic loss rule" of 2007.
Now, it seems, everyone is talking about Iqbal:
Even Justice Souter, who wrote for the majority in Twombly, thought Iqbal went too far, what with expecting judges to use "common sense" and determining what's "plausible" -- hah!“Iqbal is the most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade for day-to-day litigation in the federal courts,” said Thomas C. Goldstein, an appellate lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington.
On its face, the Iqbal decision concerned the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. The court ruled that a Muslim man swept up on immigration charges could not sue two Bush administration officials for what he said was the terrible abuse he suffered in detention.
But something much deeper and broader was going on in the decision, something that may unsettle how civil litigation is conducted in the United States. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented from the decision, told a group of federal judges last month that the ruling was both important and dangerous. “In my view,” Justice Ginsburg said, “the court’s majority messed up the federal rules” governing civil litigation.
Sheesh, they're federal judges, give them a break!
Indeed, just a few days ago Judge Conway of the Middle District dismissed a false marketing suit involving Seroquel, citing Iqbal.
I hate legal trends, and particularly trendy decisions or theories that are untested and which run amuck for a while before things get back to normal.
So now everything is going to be about Iqbal, at least for the near future, before somebody realizes that maybe we went too far and we can go back to normal pleading practices, you know, Rule 1, Rule 8, Rule 12 -- the oldies but goodies.
And so, kids, now you know why I hate flatbread.
This entry was posted on at 1:22 AM and is filed under flatbread, Iqbal, legal trends, twombly. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Medical marijuana legal in some states, is creating some employment law problems . Seems employees with prescriptions for medicinal use of ...
-
Today marks day 100 of the Mott's strike . The pro-union writer, Michael Winship, does a pretty good job of outlining the economics of ...
-
This business owner's letter to the editor makes a strong case for preservation of the secret ballot for determining a union's maj...
-
Here is another example (the leather goods industry) of the absolute collapse of domestic manufacturing causing the elimination of high pa...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...
-
Attorney Kelsey will be appearing on Money Matters with Scottie McCall on Friday, April 30, 2010 at 3:30 P.M. Attorney Kelsey will discuss...